Why did Big Business so strongly support the left in the Presidential election?

[EnglishPete]

One of the notable things about this recent election was how Big corporations were almost entirely on the side of and supporting the main candidate of the left whilst opposing the main candidate of the right. Clinton was supported by numerous top CEOs and big corporations. Trump, whilst he was supported by a few notable very wealthy individuals they were very much the exception. He did not get the support of any major corporations or CEOs and the bulk of the billionaire class opposed him.

Now a large part of the left like to spin this narrative that whatever big business do is of the right and the left is always opposed to big business interests. So they spin this by saying that Clinton wasn't on the left at all but rather on the right!!! In this narrative Trump was just a bit too right wing for the big corporate bosses so they went for the more moderate right wing Clinton! Of course this is complete nonsense. Hillary Clinton has been a dedicated leftist for nearly fifty years, Trump was the only major party candidate on the right.

In my view the real reason is that big corporations overwhelmingly backed the left wing candidate because big corporations overwhelming lean to the left. As was pointed out on a recent Breitbart article on the Breitbart spat with the Kellog's company "Corporate America is more left than right"  http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/12/03/virgil-the-lefts-long-march-enabled-by-corporate-america-ten-things-to-know-about-kelloggs-war-against-breitbart/

This is not just a phenomena in the US but also clearly in Western Europe as well. I think it was explained very well in an article from last year from right wing British journalist Ed West

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2015/05/why-is-big-business-so-interested-in-left-wing-politics/

I'm sure the reason so many leftists can't see this is that they're so enamoured of their fantasy of being the litlle guy standing up to 'the man' that they refuse to see that 'the man' is not only on the left himself but is the driving force behind the funding of leftist activists.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

because everyone with the slightest bit of knowledge about economics knows that trump would be a disaster. not a difficult question.

and the breitbart article (unsurprisingly) is way off base. pinkwashing is not synonymous with leftism (and is in fact widely derided in leftist circles)

[Pericles]

I think it was because big corporations saw Trump as dangerous to the economy. Clinton was a safe choice. Trump, well, he would start a trade war. He said he might default on the national debt. He would deport 11 million illegals, which would hurt business and also hurt the economy. It wasn't just big business, economists, experts, newspapers, they heard what Trump was saying and they did not like it one bit. I think it is telling that Trump got the most support from the poorly educated, that he even said "I love the poorly educated." He was clearly unfit for office and dangerous. Clinton was fit to serve and a steady hand.

[Thunderbird is the word]

"left" is a misnomer. Big corporations opportunistically adapting social liberalism because it's good for business does not the left make.

[EnglishPete]

because everyone with the slightest bit of knowledge about economics knows that trump would be a disaster. not a difficult question.

and the breitbart article (unsurprisingly) is way off base. pinkwashing is not synonymous with leftism (and is in fact widely derided in leftist circles)

Big business has had a growing affinity for left wing advocacy long before Trump became a candidate.

As for 'Pinkwash' big business has been routinely backing left wing 'social justice' ideology in all kinds of areas, including those areas like immigration where the right wing view is clearly far more popular than the left wing view. I don't think, therefore, it can be put down to a desire for good PR, its much more deep seated than that.

[Fuzzy Bear]

because everyone with the slightest bit of knowledge about economics knows that trump would be a disaster. not a difficult question.

and the breitbart article (unsurprisingly) is way off base. pinkwashing is not synonymous with leftism (and is in fact widely derided in leftist circles)

Big business has had a growing affinity for left wing advocacy long before Trump became a candidate.

As for 'Pinkwash' big business has been routinely backing left wing 'social justice' ideology in all kinds of areas, including those areas like immigration where the right wing view is clearly far more popular than the left wing view. I don't think, therefore, it can be put down to a desire for good PR, its much more deep seated than that.

Younger, newer execs are not social conservatives.

Hillary Clinton was an economic moderate and a social liberal.

[EnglishPete]

Younger, newer execs are not social conservatives.

Not just newer younger execs but also also CEOs are not just not social conservatives but tend to be strong supporters of leftist ideas of 'social justice'

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In others words she was a leftist without being far left. Not sure what difference that's supposed to make to the point I'm making.

[Nyvin]

The only three fields which are still dominated by Republicans are the Energy sector, Agriculture sector, and the gun industry.  

There's some smaller areas, like Restaurant owners, that back Republicans, but most other major business sectors (including the financial sector) generally are becoming associated with the Democrats.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

I think it was because big corporations saw Trump as dangerous to the economy. Clinton was a safe choice. Trump, well, he would start a trade war. He said he might default on the national debt. He would deport 11 million illegals, which would hurt business and also hurt the economy. It wasn't just big business, economists, experts, newspapers, they heard what Trump was saying and they did not like it one bit. I think it is telling that Trump got the most support from the poorly educated, that he even said "I love the poorly educated." He was clearly unfit for office and dangerous. Clinton was fit to serve and a steady hand.

-Tell that to the people of Mali. And why do you hate the poorly educated?

[catographer]

Many businesses, especially media, technology, and entertainment, are socially liberal. Doesn't make them economically leftist. Also they value stability; Trump isn't stable.

[justfollowingtheelections]

Two reasons:

1. Trump (a madman)

2. The "left" weren't really that left (LINO- left in name only)

[Shadows]

I think it was because big corporations saw Trump as dangerous to the economy. Clinton was a safe choice. Trump, well, he would start a trade war. He said he might default on the national debt. He would deport 11 million illegals, which would hurt business and also hurt the economy. It wasn't just big business, economists, experts, newspapers, they heard what Trump was saying and they did not like it one bit. I think it is telling that Trump got the most support from the poorly educated, that he even said "I love the poorly educated." He was clearly unfit for office and dangerous. Clinton was fit to serve and a steady hand.

Fully Agreed. Any sane man would oppose Trump. Now if it was Kasich vs Hillary or Jeb vs Hillary then I think it will be very even - How can you blame then for not supporting a mad man.

Big Business is significantly to the right on all economic issues but there is a sharp diversion on social issues. Abortion ban is a strict no. Tim Cook is a gay CEO, how can he support these radicals even if he likes some economic policies?

Social Conservatism is essentially turning the executives in business off on a personal level along with immigration opposition (opposition to free trade) etc.

Also most of the exe are sane people, they understand science & all. You can't call Climate Change a hoax when the human habitation is under stake. How can educated people support this non-sense?

Kasich would have got good support.

[NOVA Green]

I think what all of the posters thus far are ignoring, although props to Fuzzy Bear from bring up the "economically moderate/ socially liberal" perspective, is that inherently the logic of large MNCs and Publicly traded corporations is to make money in a risk adverse environment.

Companies don't think in terms of traditional American ideological paradigms/ political partisan identity....

They think in terms of an overall economic environment, quarterly reports, and the ultimate P&Ls that will determine the performance levels of Senior Management, and they don't like dramatic change.

Although I was never a Senior Manager, I did report to my top bosses, that did talk directly to the CEO/CFOs etc in Denmark for an MNC....

Political stability and consistent governmental policy is highly valued in Corp America, since most of us working in the private sector at certain positions are too busy focused on our real jobs, instead of paying attention to the year-by-year ins and outs of political partisan warfare.

Both the Democratic and Republican parties have their feet firmly planted within this system, and generally most large corporations spread money around to advance what they perceive as their economic sector's interest to any receptive politician....

Clinton was simply seen as the candidate of consistency vs change, and "Big Business" bet on the candidate that they saw as least disruptive to the status quo (the business of making money) and was also seen by all CW to be an effective "3rd term Obama" President, although perhaps more receptive to certain business sectors/interests than others.

What no one expected was the extent to which many working and middle-class American voters would swing hard towards Trump, as part of a rejection of the Neo-Liberal Corporate Bi-Partisan agenda that has existed among the political elites since at least the Mid 1970s....

Meanwhile many voters feel abandoned by both major political parties, while our jobs have been shipped overseas, and even the Democratic Party is seen by many workers to have abandoned its core working-class base, which started under Bill Clinton at the Presidential level and continued on to this day.

Pat Buchanan/ Ross Perot and even Bernie Sanders in the Democratic Primaries should have been a warning sign....

I don't think Big Business "swung to the Left", I think both the Democratic and Republican Parties "swung to the Right" at a national level for four decades....

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

If big business loves "the left", there's something wrong with your definition of "the left".

[AtorBoltox]

If big business loves "the left", there's something wrong with your definition of "the left".

Acknowledging that Trump presents a massive threat to the economy does not equal 'loving the left'

[Bismarck]

The only three fields which are still dominated by Republicans are the Energy sector, Agriculture sector, and the gun industry.  

There's some smaller areas, like Restaurant owners, that back Republicans, but most other major business sectors (including the financial sector) generally are becoming associated with the Democrats.

Definatly need some sources to back that up.

[Devout Centrist]

Idiots in leadership are bad for business.

[nicholas.slaydon]

Because Donald Trump was a wild card and Hillary was an establishment sell out.

[RINO Tom]

because everyone with the slightest bit of knowledge about economics knows that trump would be a disaster. not a difficult question.

and the breitbart article (unsurprisingly) is way off base. pinkwashing is not synonymous with leftism (and is in fact widely derided in leftist circles)

Big business has had a growing affinity for left wing advocacy long before Trump became a candidate.

As for 'Pinkwash' big business has been routinely backing left wing 'social justice' ideology in all kinds of areas, including those areas like immigration where the right wing view is clearly far more popular than the left wing view. I don't think, therefore, it can be put down to a desire for good PR, its much more deep seated than that.

Younger, newer execs are not social conservatives.

Hillary Clinton was an economic moderate and a social liberal.

If we say it over and over again, it'll become true!

[Santander]

because everyone with the slightest bit of knowledge about economics knows that trump would be a disaster. not a difficult question.

and the breitbart article (unsurprisingly) is way off base. pinkwashing is not synonymous with leftism (and is in fact widely derided in leftist circles)

Big business has had a growing affinity for left wing advocacy long before Trump became a candidate.

As for 'Pinkwash' big business has been routinely backing left wing 'social justice' ideology in all kinds of areas, including those areas like immigration where the right wing view is clearly far more popular than the left wing view. I don't think, therefore, it can be put down to a desire for good PR, its much more deep seated than that.

Younger, newer execs are not social conservatives.

Hillary Clinton was an economic moderate and a social liberal.

If we say it over and over again, it'll become true!

The facts show that, especially on economic issues, the two parties are effectively one party masquerading as two. The real difference is rather small, despite the stark rhetorical contrast.

Of course, that doesn't change the fact that Hillary went far-left during the campaign because of Bernie.

[RINO Tom]

because everyone with the slightest bit of knowledge about economics knows that trump would be a disaster. not a difficult question.

and the breitbart article (unsurprisingly) is way off base. pinkwashing is not synonymous with leftism (and is in fact widely derided in leftist circles)

Big business has had a growing affinity for left wing advocacy long before Trump became a candidate.

As for 'Pinkwash' big business has been routinely backing left wing 'social justice' ideology in all kinds of areas, including those areas like immigration where the right wing view is clearly far more popular than the left wing view. I don't think, therefore, it can be put down to a desire for good PR, its much more deep seated than that.

Younger, newer execs are not social conservatives.

Hillary Clinton was an economic moderate and a social liberal.

If we say it over and over again, it'll become true!

The facts show that, especially on economic issues, the two parties are effectively one party masquerading as two. The real difference is rather small, despite the stark rhetorical contrast.

Of course, that doesn't change the fact that Hillary went far-left during the campaign because of Bernie.

JMO, but there is no non-conjecture way of judging candidates other than either what they campaign on or what you feel pretty confident they'll be beholden to (i.e., what their party's legislature will push), and both are not moderate.

[Boston Bread]

Big donors are more willing to donate to who they think will win, which was Clinton.

[RINO Tom]

Big donors are more willing to donate to who they think will win, which was Clinton.

This, too.  Obama got way more than McCain did in 2008, IIRC, and he ran a fairly anti-Wall Street campaign (more or less rebuked the Bush years, saying he would end the overly-pro-business nonsense that got us into the Great Recession).  I think "big business" shows its true colors when there isn't a clear frontrunner (e.g., donating MUCH more to Romney than Obama in 2012).

[Hillary Lost]

because everyone with the slightest bit of knowledge about economics knows that trump would be a disaster. not a difficult question.

and the breitbart article (unsurprisingly) is way off base. pinkwashing is not synonymous with leftism (and is in fact widely derided in leftist circles)

Such a disaster that Carrier stayed here and now Apple and Sprint are going to start making products here.  The stock market has been doing well too just from knowing he's going to be president.  Keep your socialism to yourself.

[Fuzzy Bear]

because everyone with the slightest bit of knowledge about economics knows that trump would be a disaster. not a difficult question.

and the breitbart article (unsurprisingly) is way off base. pinkwashing is not synonymous with leftism (and is in fact widely derided in leftist circles)

Big business has had a growing affinity for left wing advocacy long before Trump became a candidate.

As for 'Pinkwash' big business has been routinely backing left wing 'social justice' ideology in all kinds of areas, including those areas like immigration where the right wing view is clearly far more popular than the left wing view. I don't think, therefore, it can be put down to a desire for good PR, its much more deep seated than that.

Younger, newer execs are not social conservatives.

Hillary Clinton was an economic moderate and a social liberal.

If we say it over and over again, it'll become true!

Compared to Bernie Sanders, she was very much an economic moderate.

Compared to Donald Trump, she represented continuity of existing economic policies; no sharp expansions or contractions, but a decent amount of predictability.